My name is Richard Marshall and
I am President of the Siskiyou
County Water Users Association
representing our organization of
some 200 members as well as
thousands of Siskiyou County
citizens who indicated by voting
nearly 80% their desire to keep
the Klamath Dams in place. I
would hasten to add that a
recent vote in Klamath County,
Oregon produced approximately
the same result. In addition I
am also a rancher in the Scott
Valley.

Mr. Thaler, nearly exactly one
year ago on January 26, 2016 we
met in the same room on
practically the same subject
that is a scoping session
regarding water quality and the
Klamath Dams. There was a
large crowd in attendance that
evening again on short notice.
At that time we registered the
same concern regarding the
seeming inability of the Water
Board to properly notice the
public regarding this most
important meeting. Certainly it
is important to us, if not to
you and your associates that we
participate in the process. It
seems we are constantly finding
out about these “public scoping”
meetings at the last minute.
Even though I am registered on
two of the notice lists i.e.
yours and the FERC. I never
received notice from your
organization and surprisingly
did get notice until just prior
to the proposed meeting of the
20th from the FERC. I don’t
know the rules that you follow
but when I used to conduct
public hearings it was required
generally speaking to give 90
days’ notice of an EIR scoping
meeting so that the public could
fully participate. I therefore
question for the record the
authenticity and legality of
this meeting because of lack of
proper public notice.

At that meeting of Jan. 26, 2016
we were asked to submit our
concerns in writing which we
did, thinking that our questions
and opinions deserved some sort
of response from your
organization who is willing to
take our tax dollars and spend
without reserve. However, no
such luck as a thank you letter
for our thoughts or a response
to our considered opinions.

CEQA vs NEPA

Our first issue with the project
proposal is that this proposed
project requiring an
environmental study is not
properly done by using CEQA.
The Klamath River is a federally
designated Wild and Scenic River
and also qualifies under the
navigable river federal
waterway. The project as
proposed impacts two states,
Oregon and California. This
alone demands that an
environmental analysis
concerning the destruction of
the hydroelectric and associated
storage facilities; the
destruction of environmental
protected fish species not the
least of which includes the Coho
Salmon and the Green Sturgeon;
as well as the short and long
nosed suckerfish; and much of
the aquatic life in the river
system; together with the
pollution of the riverine system
by toxic sediment demands that
the EIR/ EIS be done under NEPA
rules and prepared by the US
Commerce Department and the
Department of Interior.

Furthermore, one can’t study
just part of the Klamath River
system in California especially
when it comes to sediments and
pollution. One must look to the
headwater source of the Klamath
in Oregon. The production of
nitrogen and microcystin which
is wrongly attributed to the
presence of the hydroelectric
facilities occurs naturally and
by way of the byproduct of
farming operations and
particularly the bird life in
the Oregon side of the River
system. The studies done
previously by the Bureau of
Reclamation make this point very
clear. Among others they
concluded that the pollution
problems could be substantially
reduced or even eliminated by
the installation at Keno Dam of
a water quality treatment
facility. Within this same
study the removal of the hydro
facilities and storage
capability will dramatically
impact the ability to modulate
the river flow especially in low
water times. The BOR estimates
that replacing this flow
capability may cost upwards of
Eighteen Billion dollars.

Therefore we object strenuously
to the proposed actions which
absent a thorough analysis of
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
as well as all seven reaches of
the Klamath cannot determine the
full impact of the effort to
remove the hydroelectric
facilities. The study should
further include an examination
of the impact of the destruction
of the facilities will have on
the economic well- being of the
counties which are impacted.
For example there will be an
immediate destruction of
property values particularly at
Copco Lake where owners have
already experienced a loss in
value.

Finally in this section we
raise an objection to the State
of California spending tax payer
dollars to benefit a private 501
(3) c non- profit corporation
the KRRC which although recently
filed as a California
Corporation came out of New
York. It is bad enough that we
have been forced to pay an
electric surcharge to remove the
hydro facilities for many years
now against our will and best
interest for Siskiyou County.
Either KRRC or PacifiCorp should
be paying for the studies to be
submitted to the State for
review, analysis and potential
approval. The KRRC has not been
recognized by either the FERC or
the CPUC to carry out the
proposed activity. In fact the
FERC raised an objection to the
KRRC both filing simultaneously
the license transfer from
PacifiCorp to KRRC and filing to
terminate the license and remove
the hydro power facilities.

Amended KHSA

On April 6, 2016 after the
resounding failure of the
previous KBRA and KHSA
agreements, which had been
pursued for many years by the
Department of Interior, State of
California, State of Oregon and
numerous agencies and NGO’S, and
rejection by Congress, despite
numerous attempts by the
environmental arms of California
and Oregon reconstructed the
previously failed KHSA calling
it the amended KHSA. This is
the underpinning of your
organizations efforts to
legitimatize the effort to
destroy the hydroelectric
facilities. It is our opinion
that this document is illegal as
the Governor of California had
no legislative authority to bind
the State in a potentially
disastrous project without the
benefit of appropriate studies
and deliberations by the State
Legislature. In short Governor
Brown had no authority to enter
into an abortive attempt to
create a Federal Interstate
Compact.

Klamath Bi State Compact

The Klamath Basin is governed by
the 1957 Compact between the
States of California, Oregon and
the Federal Government. This
governing doctrine is referred
to as “the law of the River”.
It is a Federal Statute enacted
by both legislatures of Oregon
and California and codified by
the US Congress by Statute
enacted on August 30, 1957 (71
Stat. 497). This document
arrived after many years of
negotiation between the States
and their representatives set
forth the process for
prioritization of beneficial
uses of the Klamath River
including the hydropower element
which was negotiated at the time
by COPCO the predecessor to
PacifiCorp. The negotiating team
included officials from both
Oregon and California and the
Federal government. The Compact
is still in effect and is
still the “law of the River”.
This magnificently versatile
agreement arrived at by earnest
and artful negotiations included
a right to 60,000 acre feet of
water to be taken from behind
Iron Gate Dam and 200,000 acre
feet from behind Keno Dam for
the Butte Valley area. Amongst
those at the table were members
of the Siskiyou County Board of
Supervisors under the guidance
of Senator Collier. It also
resulted in the development of
the very successful fish
hatchery at Iron Gate which
draws cold water to stimulate
the development of SIX MILLION
FINGERLINGS (6,000,000) per year
to keep the Salmon population
well stocked. This process if
the dams were destroyed would go
with them. There will be no way
to make up the difference.

Siskiyou County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District

A unique piece of legislation
flowed from the adoption of the
Compact to the benefit of
Siskiyou County. Through the
legislative process in
California Assemblywoman Pauline
Davis authored a AB 1592 which
was further codified under the
California Water Code as Section
89-1. This unique piece of
legislation blessed the County
of Siskiyou with special water
rights to govern all waters of
Siskiyou County including
subterranean and surface water
excluding the water controlled
by the upper basin federal
project. This was intended to
insure that Siskiyou County
would be the master of its own
fate to provide for development
of hydropower and water usage to
benefit industry, agriculture
and domestic. Again we would
postulate that this unique water
right conferred on the County of
Siskiyou by the State of
California trumps the efforts of
the Water Board. These were
“quid pro quo” for the County’s
spearheading the effort to
develop the Federal Interstate
Klamath Compact.

Conclusion

We reiterate our concerns over
the legitimacy of the scoping
session by the Water Board first
because the notice period was
exceedingly short and begs the
question of the intent of the
board in giving such short
notice to the group most
impacted by the potential
destruction of the hydro
facilities i.e. Siskiyou County
in which three of the four
facilities to be destroyed are
located and which has the
greatest river frontage to be
impacted by the release of
sediment and opening up the
prospect of flooding and
resultant damage. Secondly, we
object to the use of state
funding to conduct the EIR/EIS
for the benefit of a private
company, the KRRC, which is not
even recognized by either the
FERC or by the CPUC. The KRRC
has no demonstrated capability
to manage such a huge
undertaking and they have no
significant funding. Thirdly, we
believe that the Governor of the
State of California had no
authority to enter into the
Amended KHSA as it had never
been reviewed or approved by the
Legislature and by signing the
agreement he has put the State
of California and the citizens
of Siskiyou County at great risk
and peril. Fourthly, the Water
Board planned action violates at
least three Federal laws (NEPA,
Federal Interstate Compact,
Article 1 Sec. 10 US
Constitution, and Endangered
Species Act) and two State laws
(Quo Warranto, and Water Code
Sec. 5900-5901). Fifth, the
proposed objectives of the
project under the KRRC are
physically and scientifically
unattainable. Sixth, most
importantly the existing
Interstate Federal Compact has
not been dealt with by Congress
and therefore remains the law of
the river.

Finally, we respectively demand
that the Water Board respond in
writing to the issues we have
raised on or before February 15,
2017.

Sincerely yours

Siskiyou County Water Users

Richard Marshall

Richard Marshall

President

====================================================

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material
herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml